Distrust in experts, government and/or anyone or group outside the tribe
Context
Minds disagreeing over most anything political rarely change. About the best one can hope for is to understand why there is disagreement. In my experience it is usually almost impossible to understand why another person thinks the way they do and thus why they believe what they believe. The level of American public distrust in both science and data is already shocking to the point of being literally terrifying. And, at least some empirical evidence indicates the plague is worsening, e.g., in the case of anti-vaccine beliefs, which are on the rise.Given the seriousness of reality and reason disconnects, it seems important to try to understand the reasons for disagreement. People can at least see why disagreements exist on almost all political or politicized issues. The following two examples highlight how hard it is to try to come to a good basis for understanding. It takes effort, time and patience. And, I suspect that simply being persistent in trying to understand is often threatening to some degree. Persistence and focus tends to force people to examine their own beliefs and the basis in reality and reason for them. That psychological discomfort is probably why it is so difficult to come to a clear understanding most of the time (~95% ?).
On distrust in objective data
This comes from a recent discussion that raised the matter of political division that has led to both the president and the congressional GOP to single out and attack democratic states in both tax laws and federal spending.Comment: Common sense informs you lower taxes leaves more money in pockets of tax paying families. An example of this is the California sales tax rate is 7.25% while in Oklahoma this tax rate is 4.5%. Applying common sense this is exceedingly easy to realize which population on a per capita basis enjoys more pocket change - rattle-trap pickup drivers on dirt roads! Data is endlessly available to you via Google research. However, common sense is more reliable.
My response: Common sense is an essentially contested concept. That is why I prefer data as the starting point to understand the reality of something. Thus, your example using sales taxes may be right or it may be wrong. It may be too narrow and focus only on money. Data is more objective than common sense. Political realities can be counterintuitive and this could be one such case.
In terms of disposable income, CA ranks 7th and OK ranks 39th. The poverty rate in CA (13.2%) and OK (13.6%) are about the same, so higher taxes in CA don't seem to push a higher proportion of people into poverty.
For things other than just money, California ranks higher (30th) in provision of healthcare compared to Oklahoma (45th). In terms of happiness of residents, CA ranks 4th and OK ranks 43rd. For health of residents, CA ranks 17th and OK ranks 43rd.
I think your common sense assertion that lower taxes leaves more money in pockets of tax paying families is contradicted by facts, at least in the case of CA compared to OK. What do you think in view of the data?
Response to response: No response as of 5 days later.
This is from a discussion on the rise of anti-vaxx disinformation and baseless conspiracy theories about a Covid-19 vaccine, which doesn't even exist yet. As far as I can tell, a basis in existing facts for such beliefs is nonexistent because the vaccine is nonexistent. Nonetheless, some intelligent, articulate people firmly believe something(s) is or will be bad enough about the Covid-19 vaccines in development that they seemingly will refuse to take it. That rigid anti-vaxx attitude is manifest regardless of bad effects on public health that it would probably lead to. Contrary data and reasoning in support of a new vaccine are almost completely irrelevant.
Comment 1: The problem with "trust the science" as a philosophy of politics is that nobody has a really satisfying answer to what happens when we do trust the science, and life ends up worse. At least we can hold politicians accountable when we don't fare well. Even when we cannot or do not hold them accountable, it's a bit easier to accept our misfortune for the simple fact that we put them there, and we made a mistake.
But I didn't have any say in who creates the epidemiological models. I don't have a platform on which to dispute what biochemists say about vaccination. If they say it's safe, my wants and needs, my self-determination and dignity, are of no consequence. And when the predictive models don't predict what they say they will, the argument is always "you can't hold us accountable, because we merely did what the data showed." And even if we were to still hold them accountable in our hearts and minds, in spite of their defenses, there's no way we can hold them accountable in action, because they exist and persist in a regime wholly insulated from public nomination or condemnation.
The reason I trust politics more than I trust science is because politicians have skin in the game. They, like scientists, look at the data. They weigh alternatives. They assess risk. And they create policy based on all of that.
Comment 2: That the judgment was reversed in the Italian case doesn't mean they shouldn't have been brought to trial at all. The Italian people and the Italian state needed justice. A cynic would say they wanted vengeance, but whether we look at it cynically or not, simply saying "sorry, better luck next time" wasn't going to cut it.
Now perhaps you might say that the public outrage at the scientists was one of those infantile reasoning things, biased, self-interested, and so on, and ought to be ignored for the sake of enlightened progress and "the greater good." But that seems awfully contemptuous and callous to expect the people who suffered to do that for science's sake. To expect them to just let it all slide is a thing that I believe to be far more inhuman and unreasonable than human and reasonable.
Someone had to be brought to account. Due process was followed bringing the charges and securing the conviction. Due process was also respected by allowing the appeal for overturning the lower court's decision. Justice was served. And the alternative would have been far worse, with people (those infantile folks who don't think 'rationally') taking justice into their own hands, where due process matters less than getting one's due by any means necessary.
It's good of us to realize that science and scientists make mistakes. The problem is that, like I said, what to do when science does make mistakes is not very satisfying. Merely saying "fix it, learn from it and try not to do it again" is not good enough. People have got to pay a high price when they put their faith in somebody, or some institution, or some study, and they end up worse because of it.
To expect common people to just keep on forgiving technocratic elites, moving past it, giving people the benefit of the doubt all the time is, quite frankly, demanding that the people practice an overly Christian attitude towards science and technology purveyors that we can in no way rationally expect people to practice. And we ask common people to do this towards powerful and influential institutions that have the power and prestige of science, technology, and industry (and the three are more intertwined than not, making science anything but totally disinterested).
That sort of "forgive and let's do better, because science is self-correcting" is the same sort of argument of the Libertarians who say that the market is self-correcting, because if you aren't getting good service, you have the right to refuse to pay for more service. Sure, you can hold companies accountable by refusing to give them more dollars, but who or what is going to hold them accountable for the dollars that were already spent?
Government and politics. They are the ones who are held accountable when things go wrong, because--quite frankly--they are the only ones that we can, futile as it may be.
It won't be the medical experts, for example, that will have to bear the responsibility for the things the state does now on their behalf. It'll be the politicians. It'll be the police. It'll be the state.
But medical experts are not politicians. Their concern is with health, but politicians have to weigh more concerns than simply health. They have to be concerned with things like civil liberties, basic human rights, and the will of both the majority, and whatever minorities think differently than the majority.
You asked perhaps a rhetorical question of "How does developing a new drug or vaccine undermine anyone's wants, needs, self-determination or dignity?" Developing it isn't the issue. Making it mandatory is the issue. Requiring its use to participate in civil society is the issue. Because even if it was safe, and had no side effects, and could or would be very beneficial to public health, we have a long tradition in this country, and much legal precedent, that people don't have the right to require others go through medical procedures, or take drugs, or submit to medical care, even if there's very good reasons for the insistence.
Unreasonable? Perhaps. But that's our custom. The good thing is that we don't have to insist that people be wise in the way we need them to be in order for them to change. We can use due process too, just like the Italians used due process against the scientists.
My 2nd response:
I do not ignore public sentiment, nor does my political ideology, pragmatic rationalism. In fact, pragmatic rationalism elevates public opinion to a higher position of influence than any other political, economic, philosophical or religious ideology that I am aware of. It is the only ideology I am aware of that explicitly demands real consideration of and accounting for public opinion, not mere lip service, in making and implementing policy. As far as I know, all the other ideologies are either silent about public opinion or they claim they are directly responsive to it. Science has shown the latter claim to be mostly lip service and a deflection from the fact that the ideology is more powerful and held in higher regard than mere public opinion.
I know, that sounds insane to you. But it honestly looks exactly that way to me. That is only one example of thousands or millions of examples showing just how amazingly personal and subjective political reality and reasoning is in the real world in real time, right now. That is what modern cognitive and social sciences are uniform in showing about the human condition. Those experts don't even debate this any more. They have moved on to trying to understand it in increasingly higher resolution as more research data comes in.
The Supreme Court recognizes the 14th-Amendment due process right to protect people against arbitrary legislative actions. The test is a simple "rational review" standard. That means that legislation (1) cannot be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and (2) must have a substantial relation to the legislative objective, which is public health in this case. The courts give this only minimal scrutiny to see if the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government purpose." If it is, then the law is constitutional. Almost all laws meet this test. A law has to be so nuts and/or incoherent that it is a joke on its face before federal courts will strike it down. That is a very rare event.
Even for a law a state cannot think of a rational reason to have, the courts will think one up for them to find the law constitutional.
Also, the Supreme Court recognizes each states’ “police power.” That gives the states authority to enact all kinds of health laws to protect people, including quarantine and vaccination laws.
One source commented on mandatory vaccines: "In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety."
Comment 3: Pending at 1 day.
Questions: Is it not important to try to understand the basis for minds in disagreement, e.g., because people can just compromise without understanding the basis for disagreements (assuming both sides are willing to compromise)?
Is persistent, focused questioning about the basis in facts and personal reasoning unpleasant or unfair to the point of being (i) more personally or socially harmful than beneficial, or (ii) more immoral than moral?
For things other than just money, California ranks higher (30th) in provision of healthcare compared to Oklahoma (45th). In terms of happiness of residents, CA ranks 4th and OK ranks 43rd. For health of residents, CA ranks 17th and OK ranks 43rd.
I think your common sense assertion that lower taxes leaves more money in pockets of tax paying families is contradicted by facts, at least in the case of CA compared to OK. What do you think in view of the data?
Response to response: No response as of 5 days later.
On trying to understand the anti-vaccine mindset
When is distrust warranted, and when isn't it?
This is from a discussion on the rise of anti-vaxx disinformation and baseless conspiracy theories about a Covid-19 vaccine, which doesn't even exist yet. As far as I can tell, a basis in existing facts for such beliefs is nonexistent because the vaccine is nonexistent. Nonetheless, some intelligent, articulate people firmly believe something(s) is or will be bad enough about the Covid-19 vaccines in development that they seemingly will refuse to take it. That rigid anti-vaxx attitude is manifest regardless of bad effects on public health that it would probably lead to. Contrary data and reasoning in support of a new vaccine are almost completely irrelevant.
Comment 1: The problem with "trust the science" as a philosophy of politics is that nobody has a really satisfying answer to what happens when we do trust the science, and life ends up worse. At least we can hold politicians accountable when we don't fare well. Even when we cannot or do not hold them accountable, it's a bit easier to accept our misfortune for the simple fact that we put them there, and we made a mistake.
But I didn't have any say in who creates the epidemiological models. I don't have a platform on which to dispute what biochemists say about vaccination. If they say it's safe, my wants and needs, my self-determination and dignity, are of no consequence. And when the predictive models don't predict what they say they will, the argument is always "you can't hold us accountable, because we merely did what the data showed." And even if we were to still hold them accountable in our hearts and minds, in spite of their defenses, there's no way we can hold them accountable in action, because they exist and persist in a regime wholly insulated from public nomination or condemnation.
The reason I trust politics more than I trust science is because politicians have skin in the game. They, like scientists, look at the data. They weigh alternatives. They assess risk. And they create policy based on all of that.
But the difference between politicians and scientists is that when they make a decision, and they get it wrong, or the violate basic rights, they get punished via the criminal law, the ballot box, separation of powers, the courts, and in the extreme case, open rebellion or revolution. It may not be their fault they make bad decisions, but they have to pay the price anyway. It is one of the burdens of leadership. It is the price they pay for being instruments of the public trust.
That's why I supported the Italian courts for bringing the case against the seismologists. Because if science and scientists want a more active role in policy, if they want to be instruments of the public trust, they have to be willing to suffer the consequences when their science causes harm, or violates basic rights of person, or tramples long cherished customs and norms. If they want to replace politicians in a democratic system, they must become accountable to the deimos.
My response:
Steven Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now, makes a compelling case that the benefits of science progress far outweigh the downsides for hundreds of millions of people.
If experts say a vaccine is safe, then the existing data, not ideology, self-interest or motivated reasoning, indicates that the vaccine is safe. The FDA is there with trained experts to (1) review the data and arguments that a vaccine is safe, and (2) reject those data and/or arguments if it deems them to be not convincing. What else can fallible humans do?
Assertions of safety are not purely made up. They are based on the totality of relevant evidence. Drug and vaccine development is a sincere but fallible human attempt to empower people's wants, needs, self-determination and dignity, by keeping them alive and healthier than they would be without the drugs or vaccines. How does developing a new drug or vaccine undermine anyone's wants, needs, self-determination or dignity? Dead people don't have any wants, needs, self-determination or dignity.
By contrast, when a scientist screws up by faking data and gets caught, they are usually severely reprimanded and often fired, a career-ending event. I see nothing close to the accountability imposed on politicians compared to scientists. The courts don't examine much of anything political, especially now under Trump and the Trump Party who have now significantly neutered both law enforcement and courts in the federal government and in red states. At least for most elected politicians and wealthy people and interests, the rule of law has degenerated into a politicized essentially contested concept. It is now just a sick joke to a large extent.
That's why I supported the Italian courts for bringing the case against the seismologists. Because if science and scientists want a more active role in policy, if they want to be instruments of the public trust, they have to be willing to suffer the consequences when their science causes harm, or violates basic rights of person, or tramples long cherished customs and norms. If they want to replace politicians in a democratic system, they must become accountable to the deimos.
My response:
The problem with "trust the science" as a philosophy of politics is that nobody has a really satisfying answer to what happens when we do trust the science, and life ends up worse.I think the answer is self-evident. When life ends up worse, fix it, learn from it and try not to do it again. That is the point of science. Science, like everything else that humans do is imperfect and will lead to lethal mistakes from time to time, e.g., thalidomide. So far, I think that there has not been a disaster of that magnitude in drug development since thalidomide. That looks to me to be a case of science learning from a mistake in the 1950s and trying to not make it again.
Steven Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now, makes a compelling case that the benefits of science progress far outweigh the downsides for hundreds of millions of people.
But I didn't have any say in who creates the epidemiological models. I don't have a platform on which to dispute what biochemists say about vaccination. If they say it's safe, my wants and needs, my self-determination and dignity, are of no consequence.The models and data are made public. Unlike most of politics (~95% ?), most of science (~99.9% ?) is transparent (protocols and data are put online for everyone to rip to pieces, confirm or otherwise play with), open to expert and public criticism and subject to revision or reversal based on (1) new evidence and/or (2) compelling expert or public criticism. That is nothing like politics. Politics is mostly irrational. Science is mostly rational, at least to the extent that humans can be rational.
If experts say a vaccine is safe, then the existing data, not ideology, self-interest or motivated reasoning, indicates that the vaccine is safe. The FDA is there with trained experts to (1) review the data and arguments that a vaccine is safe, and (2) reject those data and/or arguments if it deems them to be not convincing. What else can fallible humans do?
Assertions of safety are not purely made up. They are based on the totality of relevant evidence. Drug and vaccine development is a sincere but fallible human attempt to empower people's wants, needs, self-determination and dignity, by keeping them alive and healthier than they would be without the drugs or vaccines. How does developing a new drug or vaccine undermine anyone's wants, needs, self-determination or dignity? Dead people don't have any wants, needs, self-determination or dignity.
But the difference between politicians and scientists is that when they make a decision, and they get it wrong, or the violate basic rights, they get punished via the criminal law, the ballot box, separation of powers, the courts, and in the extreme case, open rebellion or revolution.I disagree. Empirical evidence make it clear that politicians are not particularly accountable in democracies. Voter memories are short and usually flawed due to bias, tribalism, self-interest, infantile reasoning and etc. In the book, Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do not Produce Responsive Governments, researchers comment on the human condition and politics: “. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.”
By contrast, when a scientist screws up by faking data and gets caught, they are usually severely reprimanded and often fired, a career-ending event. I see nothing close to the accountability imposed on politicians compared to scientists. The courts don't examine much of anything political, especially now under Trump and the Trump Party who have now significantly neutered both law enforcement and courts in the federal government and in red states. At least for most elected politicians and wealthy people and interests, the rule of law has degenerated into a politicized essentially contested concept. It is now just a sick joke to a large extent.
Comment 2: That the judgment was reversed in the Italian case doesn't mean they shouldn't have been brought to trial at all. The Italian people and the Italian state needed justice. A cynic would say they wanted vengeance, but whether we look at it cynically or not, simply saying "sorry, better luck next time" wasn't going to cut it.
Now perhaps you might say that the public outrage at the scientists was one of those infantile reasoning things, biased, self-interested, and so on, and ought to be ignored for the sake of enlightened progress and "the greater good." But that seems awfully contemptuous and callous to expect the people who suffered to do that for science's sake. To expect them to just let it all slide is a thing that I believe to be far more inhuman and unreasonable than human and reasonable.
Someone had to be brought to account. Due process was followed bringing the charges and securing the conviction. Due process was also respected by allowing the appeal for overturning the lower court's decision. Justice was served. And the alternative would have been far worse, with people (those infantile folks who don't think 'rationally') taking justice into their own hands, where due process matters less than getting one's due by any means necessary.
It's good of us to realize that science and scientists make mistakes. The problem is that, like I said, what to do when science does make mistakes is not very satisfying. Merely saying "fix it, learn from it and try not to do it again" is not good enough. People have got to pay a high price when they put their faith in somebody, or some institution, or some study, and they end up worse because of it.
To expect common people to just keep on forgiving technocratic elites, moving past it, giving people the benefit of the doubt all the time is, quite frankly, demanding that the people practice an overly Christian attitude towards science and technology purveyors that we can in no way rationally expect people to practice. And we ask common people to do this towards powerful and influential institutions that have the power and prestige of science, technology, and industry (and the three are more intertwined than not, making science anything but totally disinterested).
That sort of "forgive and let's do better, because science is self-correcting" is the same sort of argument of the Libertarians who say that the market is self-correcting, because if you aren't getting good service, you have the right to refuse to pay for more service. Sure, you can hold companies accountable by refusing to give them more dollars, but who or what is going to hold them accountable for the dollars that were already spent?
Government and politics. They are the ones who are held accountable when things go wrong, because--quite frankly--they are the only ones that we can, futile as it may be.
It won't be the medical experts, for example, that will have to bear the responsibility for the things the state does now on their behalf. It'll be the politicians. It'll be the police. It'll be the state.
But medical experts are not politicians. Their concern is with health, but politicians have to weigh more concerns than simply health. They have to be concerned with things like civil liberties, basic human rights, and the will of both the majority, and whatever minorities think differently than the majority.
You asked perhaps a rhetorical question of "How does developing a new drug or vaccine undermine anyone's wants, needs, self-determination or dignity?" Developing it isn't the issue. Making it mandatory is the issue. Requiring its use to participate in civil society is the issue. Because even if it was safe, and had no side effects, and could or would be very beneficial to public health, we have a long tradition in this country, and much legal precedent, that people don't have the right to require others go through medical procedures, or take drugs, or submit to medical care, even if there's very good reasons for the insistence.
Unreasonable? Perhaps. But that's our custom. The good thing is that we don't have to insist that people be wise in the way we need them to be in order for them to change. We can use due process too, just like the Italians used due process against the scientists.
My 2nd response:
That the judgment was reversed in the Italian case doesn't mean they shouldn't have been brought to trial at all.I understand that and agree. That wasn't my point. The point I was trying to make is that the situation is complicated. Seismologists started bickering among themselves, which tells me that this is not a simple black and white situation, even for experts. If the experts cannot agree among themselves, how the hell are judges supposed to know more than experts about the underlying science and then apply a law that is probably ambiguous in its language? That was my point.
Now perhaps you might say that the public outrage at the scientists was one of those infantile reasoning things, biased, self-interested, and so on, and ought to be ignored for the sake of enlightened progress and "the greater good."No, I am not saying that. What I would argue, again, is that things like this are very complicated and there is more than a little room for subjective judgments. For example, I bet the Italian law is ambiguous in its language making the original court judgment significantly or mostly subjective.
I do not ignore public sentiment, nor does my political ideology, pragmatic rationalism. In fact, pragmatic rationalism elevates public opinion to a higher position of influence than any other political, economic, philosophical or religious ideology that I am aware of. It is the only ideology I am aware of that explicitly demands real consideration of and accounting for public opinion, not mere lip service, in making and implementing policy. As far as I know, all the other ideologies are either silent about public opinion or they claim they are directly responsive to it. Science has shown the latter claim to be mostly lip service and a deflection from the fact that the ideology is more powerful and held in higher regard than mere public opinion.
It's good of us to realize that science and scientists make mistakes. The problem is that, like I said, what to do when science does make mistakes is not very satisfying. Merely saying "fix it, learn from it and try not to do it again" is not good enough.Of course scientists make mistakes. How can they possibly not make mistakes? They are human. You argue that fix it, learn from it and try not to do it again is not good enough when scientists make honest mistakes as human beings inevitably will sooner or later. Fine. What protocol or method do you have that's better? I'm completely open to all reasonable possibilities. I would greatly prefer it if you did have a better and good enough way to deal with things like this. What is your better and "good enough" way?
Government and politics. They are the ones who are held accountable when things go wrong, because--quite frankly--they are the only ones that we can, futile as it may be.Government should be held accountable for things under their control that go wrong. Right now, we are in a period where government under the GOP is withdrawing from transparency, accountability, competence and honest governance. I know the dem party had a hand in getting us to this dismal point. But right now, the populist and conservative right is driving this country toward some sort of semi-lawless, authoritarian kleptocracy tinged with an intolerant, vengeful Christian theocratic streak.
I know, that sounds insane to you. But it honestly looks exactly that way to me. That is only one example of thousands or millions of examples showing just how amazingly personal and subjective political reality and reasoning is in the real world in real time, right now. That is what modern cognitive and social sciences are uniform in showing about the human condition. Those experts don't even debate this any more. They have moved on to trying to understand it in increasingly higher resolution as more research data comes in.
..... we have a long tradition in this country, and much legal precedent, that people don't have the right to require others go through medical procedures, or take drugs, or submit to medical care, even if there's very good reasons for the insistenceI think there's a misunderstanding here.The original legal precedents were that government has the power to require people to go through medical procedures. At one time, states could force women to be sterilized if they could not afford to raise their offspring, were deemed to be "imbeciles", or etc. That has since been reversed.
The Supreme Court recognizes the 14th-Amendment due process right to protect people against arbitrary legislative actions. The test is a simple "rational review" standard. That means that legislation (1) cannot be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and (2) must have a substantial relation to the legislative objective, which is public health in this case. The courts give this only minimal scrutiny to see if the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government purpose." If it is, then the law is constitutional. Almost all laws meet this test. A law has to be so nuts and/or incoherent that it is a joke on its face before federal courts will strike it down. That is a very rare event.
Even for a law a state cannot think of a rational reason to have, the courts will think one up for them to find the law constitutional.
Also, the Supreme Court recognizes each states’ “police power.” That gives the states authority to enact all kinds of health laws to protect people, including quarantine and vaccination laws.
One source commented on mandatory vaccines: "In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety."
Comment 3: Pending at 1 day.
Questions: Is it not important to try to understand the basis for minds in disagreement, e.g., because people can just compromise without understanding the basis for disagreements (assuming both sides are willing to compromise)?
Is persistent, focused questioning about the basis in facts and personal reasoning unpleasant or unfair to the point of being (i) more personally or socially harmful than beneficial, or (ii) more immoral than moral?
No comments:
Post a Comment